Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What is "Islamaphobia"?

2

Comments

  • #52
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's intolerant and nasty. The death sentence is rare in the extreme however.

    No. What you mean is that an official death sentence is rare. But look at what happens when extremists like those in Bangladesh start killing people they say have offended Islam : their justification is that since the penalty in the Quran is death, they say they are only carrying out Sharia law because the government refuses to do so.

    Crucially, the Bangladeshi government, though secular, is in a real quandary as to what to do, because they don't want to criticize Islam, and basically the killers are correct.

    So if that can happen a secular Muslim-majority state, and when significant numbers of Muslims express varying degrees of sympathy for the killers in France recently, it's misguided, IMO, to just dismiss the issue as you do.

    People have died because they were apostates. Is there a particular number of deaths which you will consider as "not all that rare"? Or is the truth that you will cling, no matter what, to your belief that it's all those nasty non Muslims' fault really?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #53
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    The term "heterophobe" suits a little better - fear of "The Other"

    I think the more commonly used term is xenophobia, and I think where Islamaphobia is irrational it is actually no more than a form of xenophobia. That isn't to say that there aren't very many valid criticisms of Islam, some of which have already been raised, that are quite rational. For example, where a theocracy punishes an individual for apostasy, it seems reasonable that the religion as practised in that regime is the cause of human rights violations and deserves to be vilified. While there is a clear association fallacy at play for vilifying all Muslims on that basis, I would equally expect all Muslim leaders to openly criticise barbaric acts carried out in the name of their religion to dissociate them and their followers from such actions. While many do, they appear to be in a minority, which leads me to remain very sceptical of the good intents of Islam as a whole.


  • #54
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No. What you mean is that an official death sentence is rare. But look at what happens when extremists like those in Bangladesh start killing people they say have offended Islam : their justification is that since the penalty in the Quran is death, they say they are only carrying out Sharia law because the government refuses to do so.

    ..............

    I wasn't aware that the extremists were the norm.


  • #55
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that the extremists were the norm.
    I'm not aware that anyone here has said they are.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #56
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg

    This picture paints a thousands words. The Green is for countries that support a 2011 UN Human Rights Council resolution which supports LGBT rights.

    The Red are for countries that support a 2008 statement that opposes LGBT rights.

    Now, some apologists would pass this off just a few conservative countries banding together, but of course all these countries have major if not majority Islamic populations with many adhering to Sharia Law. Hell even Russia did not support that statement, you will have to have some pretty extreme views on LGBT rights if you are more extreme than Russia.
    It urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."

    But the opposing document said the statement "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."

    "We note with concern the attempts to create 'new rights' or 'new standards,' by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership," it added.

    This, it said, could "seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework."

    Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/18/us-un-homosexuality-idUSTRE4BH7EW20081218


  • #57
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm not aware that anyone here has said they are.

    That would be the impression your last post gave.


  • #58
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »

    This picture paints a thousands words. ..............

    If you would be as good as to pick the most relevant few hundred and tell us what they are....


  • #59
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    If you would be as good as to pick the most relevant few hundred and tell us what they are....

    Em, that countries with large Muslim populations are extremely anti-gay and enact the most anti-homosexual laws on this earth. Therefore, the view that "ah its just a few bad apples' does not hold sway.

    Do you deny this or are you trying to muddy the waters with whatever point you are trying to make, there by acting as an apologist for nations that execute people for being Gay.


  • #60
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    That would be the impression your last post gave.

    Only to you, I hope. And mistakenly, in any case.

    So if you're quite finished trying to deflect from what you were asked back up there a bit, do you have anything to say about the fact that when some Muslim extremists use the Quran as justification for murdering atheist bloggers in Bangladesh, the secular Bangladeshi government doesn't dare condemn it too strongly because they are aware that in fact the extremists have the literal right of things, and that the population would not accept their government doing or saying anything that appeared to criticize Islam?

    (If you're interested, which I suspect you're not, the BBC had an excellent report on the situation from their corespondent on radio 4 yesterday. I'll see if I can find a link, in case anyone else is though.)

    EDIT : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32708975
    This isn't the exact report, but contains some of the information about the problem the secular government faces if it tackles Islamists head on. It seems to have decided to compromise - among other things, by leaving the bloggers to their "fate".

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Em, that countries with large Muslim populations are extremely anti-gay and enact the most anti-homosexual laws on this earth. Therefore, the view that "ah its just a few bad apples' does not hold sway..

    They are extremely conservative, yes. We do not demonise whole peoples on such grounds, however.
    jank wrote: »
    Do you deny this or are you trying to muddy the waters with whatever point you are trying to make, there by acting as an apologist for nations that execute people for being Gay.


    is that some form of parody?


  • #62
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Only to you, I hope. And mistakenly, in any case.

    ...............

    I stated that the death penalty in such cases was rare in the extreme, to which you replied "What you mean is that an official death sentence is rare. But look at what happens when extremists like those in Bangladesh start killing people......".


  • #63
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Nodin wrote: »
    They are extremely conservative, yes. We do not demonise whole peoples on such grounds, however.
    But we can critise the beliefs in the way we are critical of Nazi beliefs say?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #64
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    silverharp wrote: »
    But we can critise the beliefs in the way we are critical of Nazi beliefs say?

    Of course.


  • #65
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    silverharp wrote: »
    CCppsDmW0AECOHk.jpg

    Is islamophobia the fear of getting your head hacked off?


  • #66
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    robindch wrote: »
    Personally, I'd defined "Islamophobe" as "Somebody who understands the islamic religion sufficiently well to be frightened of its aims and its means of achieving them".

    Took the words out of my mouth.

    We've all seen what islam has done to the places where it's the dominant religion and influence in government.

    Just look at the middle east and north africa, never ending tribal violence.

    Then there's this large group of muslims that say they are the good muslims and the carry-on in the middle east is by the bad people who are not true muslims, and these good muslims expect me to believe this, just because there is a lot of them saying it.

    Just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it right.

    Just because a lot of people said the world is flat, didn't make it right.

    Seen what islam does to places it's entrenched in and that scares me and I have a fear of that coming to where I live and that's my iislamaphobis.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course.

    But then in the public realm of ideas etc a card carrying Muslim is in the same position as a card carrying Nazi. The card carrying member of either organisation will either need to state that they don't believe part of their organisations goals or that they want to reform the organisation from within.
    And if we are talking about countries and governments an Islamic state should be critised in the way that we would be critical of North Korea or any other dictatorships that are knocking about for any behaviour that falls below certain lines that we deem to be unacceptable.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #68
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    I stated that the death penalty in such cases was rare in the extreme, to which you replied "What you mean is that an official death sentence is rare. But look at what happens when extremists like those in Bangladesh start killing people......".

    Yes. And?

    Are you disputing the factual accuracy of what I said?
    Or just putting your own spin of what I said?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #69
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    old_aussie wrote: »
    Took the words out of my mouth.

    We've all seen what islam has done to the places where it's the dominant religion and influence in government.

    Just look at the middle east and north africa, never ending tribal violence.

    ...............

    Yeah, how unique.


  • #70
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    silverharp wrote: »
    But then in the public realm of ideas etc a card carrying Muslim is in the same position as a card carrying Nazi. The card carrying member of either organisation will either need to state that they don't believe part of their organisations goals or that they want to reform the organisation from within.
    And if we are talking about countries and governments an Islamic state should be critised in the way that we would be critical of North Korea or any other dictatorships that are knocking about for any behaviour that falls below certain lines that we deem to be unacceptable.

    Nope. An extremist might be classed as such, but to point at one out of over a billion people and shout the Jihadi equivalent of "Achtung" in the expectation that they'll jump to attention is stereotyping of the worst kind.


  • #71
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Yes. And?

    Are you disputing the factual accuracy of what I said?
    Or just putting your own spin of what I said?

    I'm re-stating what I pointed out here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95465218&postcount=54


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm re-stating what I pointed out here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95465218&postcount=54

    That was a lie then, and it's a lie now.

    On the actual point : do you accept that extremists who killed bloggers because they had "offended Islam" are able to operate almost with impunity in Bangladesh (having access to information that identifies these people, publishing a list of their targets, carrying out the killings in broad daylight, and promising to continue executing the people on their list)?

    And is there any reason to disbelieve the BBC correspondent who explains this impunity with the fact that the Bangldeshi government doesn't dare act too harshly against the extremists because they are acting accordingly to what is written in Islamic texts, and the government is afraid of being accused in its turn of being anti-Islamic.

    Is any of that untrue ?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #73
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    They are extremely conservative, yes. We do not demonise whole peoples on such grounds, however.

    Sorry, but ISIS and their buddies Al-Queda, Hamas etc are not just conservative, they follow a religious doctrine that makes them martyrs, carry out unspeakable atrocities and wage war against non-believers. All of this in an effort to spread their ideology even more. Its like saying the Nazi's were just 'conservative' and not actually examine their under lying doctrine which is the root cause of their em... conservatism.


  • #74
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Nodin wrote: »
    Nope. An extremist might be classed as such, but to point at one out of over a billion people and shout the Jihadi equivalent of "Achtung" in the expectation that they'll jump to attention is stereotyping of the worst kind.

    But what will the majority of Muslims stand to attention for? Punishing apostates? Restricting free speech below levels we consider tolerable? Attitudes to gay people? Attitudes to women ?

    A person is responsible for what they believe? Or not?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #75
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That was a lie then, and it's a lie now.


    ........No, its an entirely accurate observation.


    volchitsa wrote: »
    And is there any reason to disbelieve the BBC correspondent who explains this impunity with the fact that the Bangldeshi government doesn't dare act too harshly against the extremists because they are acting accordingly to what is written in Islamic texts, and the government is afraid of being accused in its turn of being anti-Islamic.

    Is any of that untrue ?

    Doubtless there is fear of giving fuel to extremists being balanced against getting rid of them.


  • #76
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    silverharp wrote: »
    But what will the majority of Muslims stand to attention for? Punishing apostates? Restricting free speech below levels we consider tolerable? Attitudes to gay people? Attitudes to women ?

    Hard to answer that one. However it would be safe to say that 8 days time a good many mass going catholics will vote for gay marriage. To tar all catholics with the anti-gay marriage brush would thus be wrong. I suggest the same of Islam and muslims in a broader sense.


  • #77
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    ........No, its an entirely accurate observation.

    Doubtless there is fear of giving fuel to extremists being balanced against getting rid of them.

    How would one give fuel to extremists by condemning their actions and making a serious effort to bring them to justice?

    Or to put it another way, if multiple murders in broad daylight against a particular target group of non criminals do not require determined action to stop them, what would require it?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #78
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hard to answer that one. However it would be safe to say that 8 days time a good many mass going catholics will vote for gay marriage. To tar all catholics with the anti-gay marriage brush would thus be wrong. I suggest the same of Islam and muslims in a broader sense.

    No-one is tarring all Muslims with the accusation of being violent themselves, but there is a problem with refusal to condemn violence just because the Quran justifies it.

    If Catholics in Dublin were targeting gay rights bloggers and murdering them one after the other in the street, do you honestly think it wouldn't be major news? And that Irish Catholicism wouldn't be accused of causing such violence?

    And if similar murders had occurred in Holland, France and various other countries, all in the name of Catholicism, and significant numbers of non violent, "normal" Catholics worldwide were regularly expressing at least passive support for these murders, Do really think there wouldn't be an outcry against Catholicism?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #79
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hard to answer that one. However it would be safe to say that 8 days time a good many mass going catholics will vote for gay marriage. To tar all catholics with the anti-gay marriage brush would thus be wrong. I suggest the same of Islam and Muslims in a broader sense.
    You're incorrectly treating an ideology the same way as you would treat a people.

    Islam is homophobic, Muslims on the other hand can choose where they subscribe to this homophobia.


  • #80
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    How would one give fuel to extremists by condemning their actions and making a serious effort to bring them to justice?

    Or to put it another way, if multiple murders in broad daylight against a particular target group of non criminals do not require determined action to stop them, what would require it?

    I'd imagine it does require determined action, but in a way that doesn't increase their support.
    Volchista wrote:
    No-one is tarring all Muslims with the accusation of being violent themselves,
    but there is a problem with refusal to condemn violence just because the
    Quran justifies it.

    ....and when examples of muslim condemnation are brought up, they're dismissed as being too few or insincere. And there's a tendency to ignore the fact that many muslims in these countries are intimidated by extremists and afraid to speak up.


  • #81
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'd imagine it does require determined action, but in a way that doesn't increase their support.
    See this is the nub of the problem. How is it even imaginable that people who establish a hit list of non violent bloggers that they then begin to hack to ethnic one after the other in broad daylight could possibly trigger increased support among the populations just because normal levels of condemnation are used against them? No-one is saying (well I'm not) that the Bangladeshi government should torture them or anything. Just that they should actively try to identify them and bring them to justice, and that verbal condemnation of these actions shouldnt even require particular care in how it's expressed.

    By saying there is a risk that normal measures of Justice might increase the population's support for these murderers, you are the one saying that ordinary Muslims condone violence carried out against writers in the name of Islam.

    So apparently you accept there is a problem - you just basically condone it too.

    ....and when examples of muslim condemnation are brought up, they're dismissed as being too few or insincere. And there's a tendency to ignore the fact that many muslims in these countries are intimidated by extremists and afraid to speak up.
    Well obviously people are afraid - after all, it says in the Quran that apostates should be murdered, and when "apostates" are murdered, their own government is too afraid of the population's reaction to criticism of what it says in Islam to protect them.

    Bit of a vicious circle there, isn't there? We're back to the fact that what it says in the Quran is a problem, because people are afraid to speak out and say it's wrong. No-one is afraid to say they don't believe in the bible. So Islam is a problem for personal freedom in a way that Christianity no longer is, and and hasn't been for centuries.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • #82
    130Kph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 625 ✭✭✭130Kph


    We're seeing alot of the usual bleedin obvious stuff from Islamic apologists:

    "you can't paint all of Sharia as nasty based on a few nasty bits".
    "its some muslims, not all muslims"

    So let me get this straight:
    "you mean all muslims aren't violent".
    "You mean all of Sharia isn't awful"

    Goes way over my head. I just don't get it :rolleyes:

    An ex-muslim across the water lamented ruefully that you literally have to a write a 72 page preamble* everytime you make a critical comment about Islam (sometimes even Islamists) clarifying 10 or 15 of these basic building blocks (* slight exaggeration).

    Its still not enough. The usual misrepresentations are made by the apologists until they tire at some point, when the discussion finally gets down to the nub of the issue.

    Some powerful arguments made here Volchitsa.


  • #83
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So apparently you accept there is a problem - you just basically condone it too.
    I believe Nodin told me he never read the quran or hadiths, so he is running off personal experience (he met a muslim) and somewhat misplaced empathy.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Well obviously people are afraid - after all, it says in the Quran that apostates should be murdered, and when "apostates" are murdered, their own government is too afraid of the population's reaction to criticism of what it says in Islam to protect them.
    To be fair, the hadiths state that for purely apostasy however the quran states it if the apostate is viewed as causing 'mischief' in an Islamic country, which can mean he talked negatively about any part of Islam or mentioned to people he was an apostate. The punishment can be death, torture, imprisonment or dismemberment, or a combination of them.
    The quran does state very very clearly how much apostates are to be hated and how much they are to be punished in the afterlife and that apostasy is one of the worst crimes ever, which is why the hadiths have authority in the first place.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Bit of a vicious circle there, isn't there? We're back to the fact that what it says in the Quran is a problem, because people are afraid to speak out and say it's wrong. No-one is afraid to say they don't believe in the bible. So Islam is a problem for personal freedom in a way that Christianity no longer is, and and hasn't been for centuries.
    Damn straight.
    Its like when apologists claim Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a liar about how violent Islam is, when at the same time, she needs bodyguards 24/7 and every video she appears in has muslims promising hate, death and or rape in the comments sections.


  • #84
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    See this is the nub of the problem. How is it even imaginable that people who establish a hit list of non violent bloggers that they then begin to hack to ethnic one after the other in broad daylight could possibly trigger increased support among the populations just because normal levels of condemnation are used against them? .

    It's called "propaganda".
    volchitsa wrote: »
    So apparently you accept there is a problem - you just basically condone it too..

    The old 'You don't agree therefore you support Osama Bin Laden'.


  • #85
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's called "propaganda".
    Sorry, what is? Condemning a brutal murder carried out against a non violent person in broad daylight is propaganda? Really?
    Nodin wrote: »
    The old 'You don't agree therefore you support Osama Bin Laden'.
    Who mentioned Osama Bin Laden? You appear unwilling to engage with the question about what could make significant numbers of people think it might be ok to murder people in the street for blogging, and this is your reply?

    Try actually answering the question instead.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #86
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,033 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    130Kph wrote: »
    We're seeing alot of the usual bleedin obvious stuff from Islamic apologists:
    ...
    My natural response to them would be something like "if Islam doesn't represent your views, then leave it". You wouldn't remain a member of an organisation (e.g. a political party) whose fundamental views contradicted yours, so why should religion be any different? Why don't we see more people leaving Islam, then?

    My view is that we don't really "get" the levels of totalitarian indoctrination that Muslims undergo, through their childhood and formative years. I'm not claiming I really get it myself. We're used to the idea of "freedom of conscience", the liberty to change one's public affiliations to match one's internal thoughts, but that doesn't exist in Islam, which really is presented as the only correct and legitimate option. Everything other than Islam is explicitly condemned, not just as different, but as wrong and inferior; your family will disown you, you will be shamed in your community, and (in some cases) face threats to life and limb, as we have seen (for the umpteenth time) this week.

    But, hey, there is no coercion in Islam, remember? Anyone who raises concerns about Islam is dismissed as an irrational "Islamophobe", because their concerns can't be rational, since only Islam is valid - right? :rolleyes:

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • #87
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Sorry, what is? Condemning a brutal murder carried out against a non violent person in broad daylight is propaganda? Really?
    .

    A rather obtuse reading of what I stated.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Who mentioned Osama Bin Laden? .

    It's a well known meme. You said I condoned the killing because I didn't agree with you.


  • #88
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    A rather obtuse reading of what I stated.

    It's a well known meme. You said I condoned the killing because I didn't agree with you.

    Except that's not what I said. You condoned the absence of any real effort by the Bangladeshi government to take a stand against these murderers, because you claimed that if they did so this could increase support for the killers.

    I don't think the Bangladeshi government wants these killings to happen, and I don't think they support Bin Laden. But I do think they are afraid to do what is needed to protect peaceful bloggers from violent extremists.

    The members of that government are all based in Bangladesh, naturally, and have real reason to be afraid for their own lives. But what's your excuse?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #89
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Except that's not what I said. ...................

    Looks like it to me.
    "So apparently you accept there is a problem - you just basically condone it too.."


  • #90
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    Looks like it to me.
    "So apparently you accept there is a problem - you just basically condone it too.."

    We're at cross purposes I think.

    Do you agree that there is an urgent problem when a democratic, secular government daren't condemn people for publishing a death list of writers they disapprove of and then going in to kill these writers one by one?

    What actions do you think that government could or should take against them, if any?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Your wasting your time arguing the case here volchista, as the poster in question is known for spinning like a Russian ballerina, giving glib one line responses and deflecting like a seasoned politician. When it comes to this point, which it has now, I generally regard the debate won.


  • #92
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I see a major issue for the Islamic religion is that what a catholic for instance will be told is a "sin" makes no demand that they should actually be punished for it in the real world. Contrast with the Muslim treatments of "sin" like adultery or for being homosexual where anything up to death is considered to be the perfect punishment


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnMSCPHxLNA



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjnrzkzG4JI

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #93
    130Kph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 625 ✭✭✭130Kph


    jank wrote: »
    Your wasting your time arguing the case here volchista, as the poster in question is known for spinning like a Russian ballerina, giving glib one line responses and deflecting like a seasoned politician. When it comes to this point, which it has now, I generally regard the debate won.
    You articulated it very well. Its also a debating example of the Peter principle (from management theory where employees rise to the level of their incompetence).

    I was going to wait 24 hours to post this to give him a chance to give a persuasive response and move the discussion forward but he literally has nothing substantive now that we're past the kindergarten level of "its some muslims not all muslims". Maybe next we'll hear "this has nothing to do with Islam" :pac:

    It just shows this poster has only a shallow interest of the problems within Islam and is using the topic as a political football in a wider, rather pathetic game (in his head).

    bnt wrote: »
    My view is that we don't really "get" the levels of totalitarian indoctrination that Muslims undergo, through their childhood and formative years.
    ......
    Everything other than Islam is explicitly condemned, not just as different, but as wrong and inferior; your family will disown you, you will be shamed in your community, and (in some cases) face threats to life and limb,
    ........
    But, hey, there is no coercion in Islam, remember? Anyone who raises concerns about Islam is dismissed as an irrational "Islamophobe", because their concerns can't be rational, since only Islam is valid - right? :rolleyes:
    I agree the indoctrination of Islam in these societies is at insane levels however it varies from family to family. I'd say the amount of people who actually believe the religion (inside their own head) is about 30% - similar to proportions for most religions worldwide.

    Anti-muslim bigotry is as horrible as any bigotry and is rightly countered but anyone who earnestly uses the term Islamaphobia is an idiot in my opinion.


  • #94
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    We're at cross purposes I think.

    Do you agree that there is an urgent problem when a democratic, secular government daren't condemn people for publishing a death list of writers they disapprove of and then going in to kill these writers one by one?

    What actions do you think that government could or should take against them, if any?

    There is.

    Quite, determined covert surveillance, followed by discrete low key arrests.


  • #95
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    There is.

    Quite, determined covert surveillance, followed by discrete low key arrests.

    That's policing 101 though : open surveillance is the mark of a police state, designed to intimidate, not to stop crime. So take that as read. My question was what to do in the meantime : should the police service not provide these bloggers with any protection until the killers are caught?

    The other question, which you didn't answer, was your views on the fact that the government are afraid even to issue a statement condemning these killings, and indeed appear reluctant to get involved at all. Hence the lack of police protection for example.

    Would our government refusing to condemn sectarian killings and to protect high profile targets not give rise to negative comment? Of course it would.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #96
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That's policing 101 though : open surveillance is the mark of a police state, designed to intimidate, not to stop crime. So take that as read. My question was what to do in the meantime : should the police service not provide these bloggers with any protection until the killers are caught?.

    Of course they should.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    The other question, which you didn't answer, was your views on the fact that the government are afraid even to issue a statement condemning these killings, and indeed appear reluctant to get involved at all. Hence the lack of police protection for example..

    Given these elements past association with Pakistan, support for one of the less well known genocides of the 20th century and their original opposition to Bangladeshi indepencence, a country short on resources like Bangladesh is caught in an awkward situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course they should.


    Given these elements past association with Pakistan, support for one of the less well known genocides of the 20th century and their original opposition to Bangladeshi indepencence, a country short on resources like Bangladesh is caught in an awkward situation.
    That doesn't even make sense, unless you think there's some risk that Pakistan might invade? Bangladesh (East Pakistan) fought a war for independence from West Pakistan, as it then was, which cost many lives. There's still a lot of ill feeling there - as there is between India and Pakistan.

    It doesn't make sense to claim the Bangladeshi government is unwilling to criticize Pakistani-affiliated terror groups killing Bangladeshi citizens on Bangladeshi soil, any more then you'd expect India to take a soft line approach to the Mumbai massacres just because there might be links with countries it has previously fought a war with.

    So no, that doesn't work. Try again. What can it possibly be, do you think, that is preventing the Bangladeshi government from taking any effective steps to protect its own citizens against extremist terrorists with links to Pakistan? Could it possibly be not their links to Pakistan, but their appeals to Islam that are likely to cause problems for the government if they are seen by the population to be actively supporting writers who have been "condemned" for offending Islam?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #98
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That doesn't even make sense, unless you think there's some risk that Pakistan might invade? Bangladesh (East Pakistan) fought a war for independence from West Pakistan, as it then was, which cost many lives. There's still a lot of ill feeling there - as there is between India and Pakistan.

    It doesn't make sense to claim the Bangladeshi government is unwilling to criticize Pakistani-affiliated terror groups killing Bangladeshi citizens on Bangladeshi soil, any more then you'd expect India to take a soft line approach to the Mumbai massacres just because there might be links with countries it has previously fought a war with.

    ...or unwilling to criticise them lest they take out their wrath on the vulnerable rural hindu population as they did before, using the border to find safe haven.


  • #99
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...or unwilling to criticise them lest they take out their wrath on the vulnerable rural hindu population as they did before, using the border to find safe haven.

    The bottom of that barrel is going to start leaking soon if you don't stop scraping it!

    You think the government prefers to sacrifice educated urban intellectuals to protect an impoverished rural minority? That'd probably be a first in the history of mankind!

    Anyway, the question wasn't what other groups could Islamic extremists in Bangladesh target instead of writers. It was: how come the rest of the population is felt to condone this sort of violence, which is what puts the government in such a delicate position?

    You accept the premise of significant potential support within the population - and the only reason for that is Islam. You've suggested no plausible alternative explanation. That speaks for itself.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #100
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    volchitsa wrote: »
    The bottom (..............)speaks for itself.

    I never stated any such thing.


  • #101
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nodin wrote: »
    I never stated any such thing.

    Sorry. Which thing?

    You certainly haven't answered the original question, if that's what you're referring to.

    That's fine, your stance has become clear albeit by default.

    You've accepted that the Bangladeshi government can't take steps even just to protect its own non violent citizens from murder by Islamic extremists for fear of encouraging yet more support among the rest of the population.

    If you had any plausible explanation for why their population is likely to harbour sympathy for brutal murderers I'm sure you'd have given it already. What other gangs can hack innocent civilians to death in the street and still expect to be treated with such kid gloves by the authorities?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
Advertisement